Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

Transcription

1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Release Susan Wojtowicz/USFWS The Final CCP/EIS is Now Available The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the release of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte NFWR). This final CCP/EIS is being released for a 30-day review period through January 17, We released the draft CCP/EIS for a 90-day public comment period in August Based on the comments we received on the draft, we have developed a final document. The final CCP/EIS presents four alternatives for managing the refuge over the next 15 years to achieve the Service s wildlife conservation mission and to support public uses on the refuge. The 30-day review period offers offers individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders that commented on the draft plan the opportunity to review our responses to their comments and the changes made to the final plan (see Table 1 Highlights Comparison of Service-preferred Alternative C in the Draft and Final CCP/EIS ). Also during this review period, Tribal governments and Federal and State agencies with jurisdiction or expertise have the chance to review the final plan. After the review period ends, we will complete the process to approve the Fort River Division NWR final CCP (see box on lower right and Next Steps on page 2). Unlike the comment period on the draft CCP/EIS, we will not be holding any public meetings or hearings during the review period. It is important to note that CCPs are strategic documents that guide longterm refuge management and prioritize actions. Because they are strategic and long-term, CCPs sometimes detail program levels that are above current budget allocations. CCPs do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. Public Comments on the Draft Plan The public comment period on the draft CCP/EIS ran from August 18 to November 16, During this period we held 1 public information sessions in towns across the Connecticut River Watershed (watershed). We also held four public hearings; one in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We then evaluated all the letters and s we received, along with comments recorded at the public hearings, and subsequently modified the final plan based on this feedback. The comments we received covered a range of subjects, from public use to habitat management, and socioeconomic considerations. A summary of all the substantive comments we received and our responses to them is provided in appendix O in the final CCP/EIS. This appendix will be posted along with the rest of the final plan on our website (see link below). The document will be bookmarked for easy navigation. Refuge Land Acquisition The topic we received the most comments on was refuge land acquisition. Under all alternatives, we would continue to acquire lands within the refuge s approved acquisition boundary from only willing sellers to protect and restore important habitats. Lands within the acquisition boundary do not become part of the refuge unless their owners willingly sell or donate them to the Service. The proposed refuge boundary has no impact on private property use or who an owner can choose to sell to. We do not plan to acquire lands that are already permanently protected by others. Not all alternatives propose a refuge expansion. Chapter in the final plan describes the difference in detail. Where are we in the planning process? We are here Preplanning Public Scoping Develop and Analyze Alternatives Release Public Draft CCP/EIS for Public Comment Review Public Comments and Update Final CCP/EIS Release Final CCP/EIS for Review Period Regional Director Selects Alternative and Writes Record of Decision (ROD) Release Final CCP and Start Implementing the Plan Link;

2 The attached map depicts Conservation Partnership Areas (CPAs) and Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) under Service-preferred alternative C. These areas underpin our acquisition proposal under that alternative. Please refer to table.5 in chapter of the final plan for a comparison to the other alternatives. For more descriptive information on each CFA, please see appendix A in the final plan. Comparison of Draft and Final CCP/EIS Like the draft CCP/EIS, the final plan evaluates four alternatives for managing Conte NFWR over the next 15 years. However, based on information learned from the comments we received, and subsequent conversations with local experts and partners, we made several important changes, in particular to alternative C. We fully describe these changes in appendix O in the final CCP/EIS, as well as in chapter where we describe alternative C in detail. Table 1 below provides a summary comparison of alternative C between the draft and final plans. The modified alternative C is the Service s preferred alternative in the final CCP/EIS. We feel this alternative combines the actions that would most effectively achieve the refuge s purposes, vision, and goals. Relationship of final CCP/EIS to Connect the Connecticut Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) The Connect the Connecticut is a recommended strategic network of priority core areas and connectors to guide future conservation efforts in the watershed. The final CCP/EIS is consistent with this collaborative, partner-driven strategy for conserving species and ecosystems in the watershed. To learn more about the Connect the Connecticut project visit: Next Steps At the close of the 30-day review period, the Service s Northeast Regional Director will determine if the final CCP/EIS is adequate to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of Our Regional Director will then select an alternative to implement as the final CCP and document this decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). We will announce the ROD s availability in the Federal Register. Where to View the Final CCP/EIS You can download a copy of the final CCP/EIS from our website at: (see link below). Additionally, hard copies are available for viewing at the Nulhegan Basin Division (5396 VT Route 105, Brunswick, Vermont) and at the Northeast Regional Office (300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts). To request a copy of the final CCP/EIS on CD-ROM, or for more information on the planning process, contact: Nancy McGarigal, Lead Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035, northeastplanning@fws.gov For more information about the Conte Refuge, contact: Andrew French, Project Leader, 103 E. Plumtree Road, Sunderland, Massachusetts 01375, phone: 13/ Cherry Pond reflections Link; Dave Govatski Table 1. Highlights Comparison of Service-preferred Alternative C in the Draft and Final CCP/EIS Topic in Draft CCP/EIS Identified 17 CPAs across the watershed to strategically locate where Refuge staff would support partners conservation efforts. in Final CCP/EIS Where in Document to Reference Change Chapter, description of alternative C, and Appendix C Land Protection Plan (LPP). Conservation Partnership Areas (CPAs) Added 2 new CPAs (e.g. total of 19 CPAs). Increased 5 CPAs. Reduced 1 CPA. Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) (e.g. proposed refuge acquisition areas) Identified 22 CFAs across the watershed to define where the Service is seeking to expand the refuge s acquisition authority in support of priority conservation objectives. CFAs establish discrete, definable refuge land acquisition areas, where we will work with willing sellers only. Updated maps and acreages to account for refuge acquisitions since 2013, and to reflect updated conservation land base (TNC 201). Increased one CFA, and Salmon Brook CFA (Connecticut) was replaced by Muddy Brook CFA (Connecticut). Chapter, description of alternative C, and Appendix C. Proposed refuge expansion: 99,66 acres Proposed refuge expansion: 99,507 acres

3 Table 1. Highlights Comparison of Service-preferred Alternative C in the Draft and Final CCP/EIS Topic in Draft CCP/EIS Continue Service policy to only acquire an interest in land (fee or easement) from willing sellers when there is an agreement on terms and price, and funding is available, or from owners wanting to donate land. We will not use eminent domain to acquire land. Private landowner retains all private rights if they do not want to sell; or, they can sell to whomever they choose. The CTC collaborative landscape conservation design project, while in development when draft plan was published, informed delineation of CPAs and CFAs. CTC goal is to work with partners, identify priority areas for conserving ecosystems and species in the watershed, and implement strategies to sustain them. Continue existing priority public uses. Priority public uses are supported on all refuge divisions. Pre-acquisition CDs will continue to allow priority public uses to continue where they occurred prior to acquisition. Trapping will continue on Nulhegan Basin Division. Proposal to eliminate two miles of snowmobile trail on Nulhegan Basin Division. No mention of recreational drone use. in Final CCP/EIS Where in Document to Reference Change Appendix C. Land Acquisition Process Included proposal to acquire 90% of acreage, on average, in CFAs, and 10% in surrounding CPAs consistent with criteria identified in proposed LPP. Total acquisition authority increased by 1 acres as noted above. Relationship to Connect the Connecticut (CTC) Landscape Conservation Design Included results of final CTC design into refinements of CPAs and CFAs presented in appendix C. Added example in appendix C of how CFAs overlay with the final CTC priority core and connector areas. Appendix C. Priority Public Uses No Continued to allow priority public uses on newly acquired lands where it was already occurring and found compatible. We plan to complete detailed step-down plans in the near future (e.g. Hunting and Fishing Plans). Appendix D Findings of Appropriateness (FOAs) and Compatibility Determinations (CDs). Other Public Uses Propose to eliminate only one mile of snowmobile trail, and keep one mile of a critical link on Nulhegan Basin Division. Determined that use of recreational drones is not appropriate. Appendix D. Habitat Management Step-down habitat management plans (HMPs) will provide details on more specific management actions. Appendix A provides habitat objectives and identifies focal species and habitats by CFA. No Further emphasized that development of each divisionspecific HMP will follow a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process, including public involvement. Chapter, goal 1, and Appendix A Resources Overview and Management Direction for Conservation Focus Aras and Refuge Units.

4

5 Reader s Guide to the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge s Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment Chapters Chapter 1: Purpose of, and Need for, Action gives an overview of why the refuge needs a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and provides background on the refuge s establishment history and its purposes, vision, and goals. Chapter 2: The Planning Process describes the planning process, the laws and Service policies that guide our planning, and summarizes the public and partner issues, opportunities, and concerns we addressed in the draft CCP. Chapter 3: Affected Environment gives an overview of the Connecticut River watershed and the existing refuge s natural and socioeconomic environments including: air quality, water quality, wildlife, fish, plant, and habitats, and historical and archaeological resources. It also describes refuge administration and existing public use opportunities on refuge lands. Chapter : Alternatives, Including the Service s Preferred Alternative details four alternative scenarios for managing the refuge: Alternative A Continuing Current Management; Alternative B Consolidated Stewardship; Alternative C Enhanced Conservation Connections and Partnerships (the Service s Preferred Alternative); and Alternative D Reduced Management with Emphasis on Backcountry Recreation. Chapter presents broad, watershed-level objectives for achieving refuge goals in collaboration with partners throughout the watershed. It introduces the concepts of Conservation Partnership Areas (CPAs) and Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs). The table at the end of chapter compares and contrasts some of the major actions proposed under the four alternatives. Appendix A is the companion to chapter and focuses on more specific sub-objectives and strategies for managing existing and proposed refuge lands. Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences analyzes the anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts from implementing the four different alternatives. The table at the end of chapter 5 summarizes and compares the impacts of the actions proposed under the four alternatives. Chapter 6: Coordination and Consultation lists public and partner meetings we attended or held during the planning process. Chapter 7: List of Preparers lists all of the Service, state, and other partner personnel who worked on the plan. Bibliography lists all of the literature cited for the chapters. Glossary, Acronyms, and Species Scientific Names defines technical terms, lists the scientific names for all the species mentioned, and defines the acronyms used in the chapters.

6 Reader s Guide to the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge s Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment Appendixes Appendix A: Resources Overview and Management Direction for Conservation Focus Areas and Refuge Units describes our proposed management actions on existing refuge lands (divisions and units) and where we propose future refuge acquisitions (CFAs). Appendix A takes the broad, watershed level goals and objectives from chapter and steps them down more specifically for refuge lands. This appendix is focused on our proposals under Alternative C (Servicepreferred alternative), but is also relevant to refuge lands under alternative B. This appendix is organized by alphabetically by state. Appendix B: Process for Establishing Priority Refuge Resources of Concern describes how we identified refuge species and habitat priorities. Appendix C: Land Protection Plan provides detailed information on the proposed refuge expansion under alternative C. Appendix D: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations explains which public uses we propose to allow and not allow on existing and proposed refuge lands under alternative C. Appendix E: Wilderness Review evaluates existing refuge lands for their potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. At this time, we do not recommend any refuge lands for wilderness designation. Appendix F: Wild and Scenic Rivers Review describes river segments in existing and proposed refuge lands and the process for evaluating their eligibility as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. At this time, we recommend working with partners to evaluate entire rivers, beyond just the segments of rivers on existing and proposed refuge lands. Appendix G: Refuge Operations Needs System and Service Asset Maintenance Management System reflects staffing, operations, and maintenance needs and costs for alternative C. Appendix H: Staffing Charts depicts the current and proposed staffing under each of the alternatives. Appendix I: U.S. Geological Survey Report: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives describes the current regional economic setting. It also analyzes and compares the projected socioeconomic impacts of implementing the four alternatives. Appendix J: Forest Management Guidelines provides additional details on the desired future condition of refuge forests, the specific forest management techniques we propose to use to actively manage refuge forests, and provides a glossary of forestry terms. Appendix K: Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act of 1991 is the full-text of the refuge s establishing legislation. Appendix L: Fire Management Program Guidance outlines guidance for fire management, explains the fire management planning process, and describes the current fire management program at the refuge. Appendix M: Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Development of the CCP lists and describes the conservation plans and initiatives we use to develop the CCP, including national and regional bird plans, state wildlife action plans, recovery plans for federally listed species, and regional recreation plans. Appendix N: List of Partnerships highlights the extent and importance of the partnership network in the watershed and lists some of the refuge s important partners, including government agencies, nonprofits, recreational and environmental educational organizations, academic institutions, and refuge Friends groups. Appendix O: Services Response to Public Comments on the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS is a summary of all the substantive comments we received and our responses to them.

7 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/3 WILD December 2016 Lamar Gore/USFWS Connecticut River